Big Content now opposes FM tuner requirement for smart phones

Last year the music labels supported a Congressionally mandated FM chip in …

When it comes to an FM tuner mandate for smartphones, it's never entirely clear who is going to take what position at any given moment. Here's the latest development—the Recording Industry Association of America is supporting Representative Darrell Issa's (R-CA) resolution asking Congress to "oppose any mandate for the inclusion of terrestrial broadcast radio tuners in the manufacture or sale of mobile devices, which would stifle innovation, competition, and consumer choice."

The resolution is co-sponsored by Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and would put the kibosh on what at one point last year looked like the Grand Compromise between big content and the broadcasters over the Performance Rights Act. Radio stations would agree to pay performers royalties when their works are broadcast over radio stations, and the stations would get a Congressionally-required FM tuner in mobiles in return.

It seemed like the music labels were pretty cozy on this idea, last we checked. The RIAA-backed musicFIRST coalition said it was definitely on board. "As regards the chip, this is a key issue for the radio industry," the group told Ars late last summer. "musicFIRST, too, likes FM chips in cell phones, PDAs, etc. It gives consumers access to more music choices."

This infuriated the Consumer Electronics Association. "Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do," the CEA's Gary Shapiro declared—although the trade group later hinted that it would go along with the idea if it had to.

But that deal fell apart, and now everybody on the content/mobile side is a happy family again, it appears. The CEA, CTIA—The Wireless Association, and the RIAA have put out a joint statement praising the House resolution against a chip requirement.

Zero sense

"Every platform in the industrialized world respects property rights but one—terrestrial radio in the US," says RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol. "So the idea of the government rigging the playing field to expand the scope of the existing taking makes zero sense. That's why we welcome this resolution and the broader concept of policies that reward technical and creative innovation."

In fact, you'd never know these groups ever warmed to the concept after reading the supporting statement of Neil Portnow, president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences: "The music community wants to see the growth of distribution platforms that compensate musicians and performers. The most exciting new mobile devices are also the distribution platforms that fully compensate musicians and performers. FM Radio, by contrast, does not."

The statement says that 150 prominent musicians have also joined the no-FM chip cause. But these commentaries also suggest that while the FM tuner mandate appears headed for the dumpster—the PRA is still a going cause. Issa, it should be noted, was one of the original sponsors of the legislation, which has fizzled out over the last few Capitol Hill seasons, despite efforts to find common ground.

His and Eshoo's resolution would appear to keep the performance royalties flame alive, as these preliminary "whereas"-es suggest:

Whereas the United States should provide fair and meaningful protection for artists, creators, and innovators;

Whereas copyrights need to be supported to encourage creative development;

Whereas Internet, satellite, and cable radio support the creation of new music by compensating the artists whose talent and hard work are at the core of the music and the investors who support them and bring their music to the public . . .

Killing your home town

"Finally," read the last, "we recommend creating a right of public performance for copyright owners for sound recordings transmitted by over-the-air broadcast stations which, in part, will allow copyright owners to obtain overseas royalties that are now denied to them."

But this brought a quick rebuke from the National Association of Broadcasters. "NAB remains unalterably opposed to legislation creating an onerous, jobs-killing fee on America's hometown radio stations without offsetting provisions and benefits that recognize the unparalleled promotional value of radio airplay," the organization's Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton warned.

"The NAB offered a legislative package to resolve this issue last year, which was summarily rejected by the musicFirst Coalition," the statement added. "Our offer still stands."

81 Reader Comments

Meh - usual silliness. That being said, I love that my WP7 phone has FM. The only way I'd be happier is if it had AM too. Yes, I listen to both, and honestly have found both quite useful for local news, alerts, civil defense warnings, etc. Especially since the radio stations do have generators should the power go out @_@

They'll take the FM out of my Droid-X when they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers (my .38 will be in the other hand and they can have that, too). I love getting my Portland Trail Blazers basketball game broadcasts on my walk home from work (when they play Least Coast teams the games start around 4PM PST).

At first my jaw dropped when I began reading the article, then reality sank-in. For a moment I forgot what fuckstickery the RIAA was capable of. In short, nothing to see here, people. Business as usual. Move along.

doesn't the riaa realize that fm is their biggest promotional tool? i don't understand why they think they should be paid by the industry that promotes their product, it seems to me that it is a perfectly arranged symbiotic relationship. how else are they going to tell us what we should like? they're just to stupid to realize that promotion isn't competition.

Huh? This mandate was utterly retarded then and is utterly retarded now. RIAA, like a broken clock, is bound to be right once in awhile and this is one of those times. Cherish it because it might be years before it happens again.

Huh? This mandate was utterly retarded then and is utterly retarded now. RIAA, like a broken clock, is bound to be right once in awhile and this is one of those times. Cherish it because it might be years before it happens again.

The RIAA only opposes it now because they get paid more with Pandora and other music streaming apps than if you listen to FM radio. Their POV is that if the NAB can successfully lobby against radio having to pay performance right fees, then they'll hasten the death of radio as fast as possible. Not bad business strategy, but still incredibly short sighted.

jdbpogo and doormat, you're both spot on. Mind you, some commercial stations in the UK now air so many ads (either for survival or greed) that FM can be difficult to romanticise. Love AM for sport though. What about DAB chips instead?

It strikes me as another example of the RIAA being greedy. A really good independent FM station I listen to says they would have to shut down if they had to pay performers' rights. Listening to radio shows can be a good way to discover new music, and from the performers' perspective that then means that more people are likely to buy their records. It is, and has always been considered, free advertising for them.

From the phone manufacturers' point of view, it is rather strange to be legally required to include an FM tuner, but how much could it possibly cost to do so? Probably pennies per unit.

I think it would be cool if my phone had a built-in FM tuner, and the requirement would hurt absolutely no one. I say congress should go for it.

They'll take the FM out of my Droid-X when they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers (my .38 will be in the other hand and they can have that, too). I love getting my Portland Trail Blazers basketball game broadcasts on my walk home from work (when they play Least Coast teams the games start around 4PM PST).

At first my jaw dropped when I began reading the article, then reality sank-in. For a moment I forgot what fuckstickery the RIAA was capable of. In short, nothing to see here, people. Business as usual. Move along.

Over-react much nutball?.nobody's taking your phone.Just make sure it has a radio if you want a new one.Or get a portable one from the dollar store.

I can't be bothered to figure out who's doing what this time. Here's what I support:

There should be no mandatory radio tuner in anyone's equipment - companies do that on their own for differentiation, and that's good.

Performer fees should be paid by radio stations as long as they have to be paid by internet radio stations.The record companies will just have to find ways to provide more payola to get their songs on the air and keep the radio stations in the black, at least the ones that aren't just re-transmissions of a nation-wide recording.

The issue at hand doesn't make sense: Why would you mandate FM on phones? I think it would be great... but what exactly makes it so important that it needs to be mandated? And if a manufacturer wants to put it in, why shouldn't they? I just don't get why they want to force this or how they have the authority without any good reason.

Well, AM and FM Radio is going obsolete to webcasting and podcasting anyways, as there are Napstar and iTunes, where you can just purchase music anyways, and listen to music commercial free.

Interesting, so how do I get web and podcasting while out in the middle of nowhere?

It will probably happen one day but until they can a reliable internet TV connection to everyones wired up home I doubt radio needs to worry.

Until mobile networks have 100% area coverage it just isn't going to happen. Relative to the cost of running a mobile network radios cost peanuts.

EDIT: Its entirely possible though that AM and FM radio are obsolete for people that don't listen to them. For me NASCAR is obsolete because I watched 4 laps of one race 10 years ago and realised it was racing for gun toting morons. However, that doesn't mean its obsolete for the 70% of Americans who do tote guns.

I think the correct answer is that terrestrial radio stations should pay, as long as they're not paying streaming royalties as well. That way, radio stations that are already streaming don't get punished from double dipping, and the only stations affected are the ones that don't stream.

The idea of forcing a manufacturer to put an FM chip in their phone is utterly crazy. I might be able to understand mandating these things for public safety reasons and that's a HUGE maybe. But to try and strongarm manufacturers into putting FM chips in for business reasons is appalling.

I'd love it if my smartphone had FM; but I sure as hell don't want the manufacturer to be forced to put one in.

I stream my NPR station over my phone all the time, but I'd really appreciate a decent system for public alerts to be sent to us through our mobile devices. If an FM receiver requirement is what it takes, I'm all for it.

Not that I support mandating FM chips into everything (although, actually, there would be a good case for public safety reasons with emergency broadcasts... cell phone networks can't handle call volume during large emergencies), but for the RIAA to turn around and decry how it will promote the "stealing" from them by broadcasters, all while they're trying to ram a performance rights act down broadcaster's throats? Especially after this was considered to be the "compromise" that had many cave to the very idea of the PRA?

That's just scummy.

Of course, personally I think both the PRA and the similar internet radio fees were, while within the legal scope of copyright, fairly egregious. At most the internet broadcasting fee (and in turn the PRA, should it be passed) should have dealt with profit sharing. The RIAA isn't losing anything from these songs being played, and while other people may not have a right to make money without sharing it back with the RIAA from playing these songs, I do think that viewing everything before profits in broadcasting publicly as being fair use is closer to the core spirit of copyright, ideally.

doesn't the riaa realize that fm is their biggest promotional tool? i don't understand why they think they should be paid by the industry that promotes their product, it seems to me that it is a perfectly arranged symbiotic relationship. how else are they going to tell us what we should like? they're just to stupid to realize that promotion isn't competition.

This is laughable given how many of our radio stations are programmed once for the whole country, then they have local folks dub in the voice pieces of it. There really isn't anything local about radio anymore..

Oh, and about the public safety thing, wouldn't it make more sense to encourage/require mobile standards to include an equivalent for the emergency broadcast system, so we can eventually repurpose FM stations' frequencies?

Any radio station worth listening to already streams over the web (e.g.KEXP).

I disagree. The two AM stations I listen to that have locally produced talk shows (local events, q&a with folks from the county and state, etc) do not do streaming. Also, I can't really stream in the car while driving *-*

FM and AM radio is not obsoleted by webcasting or podcasting. FM/AM is far more reliable than a data stream over 3G, and it doesn't use data roaming (which means you can use it for free abroad). While podcasts are extremely convenient, they are not so useful for news programmes, which is what I like to listen to in the morning commute to work.

Well, AM and FM Radio is going obsolete to webcasting and podcasting anyways

Not necessarily.

The one-to-many model of broadcasting is very bandwidth efficient and has enormous range compared to any routed packet system. It is also effectively immune to disruption in transit aside from interference and has no configuration. It also has a massive installed base (every single car in North America).

The RIAA only opposes it now because they get paid more with Pandora and other music streaming apps than if you listen to FM radio. Their POV is that if the NAB can successfully lobby against radio having to pay performance right fees, then they'll hasten the death of radio as fast as possible. Not bad business strategy, but still incredibly short sighted.

the RIAA are morons and we all know that.and i can bet i will never see a dime from any radio station for playing any of my art.and i got a half dozen lp's out with various acts i have done.

If this jacks up the price of my iPhone for a feature I do not give a rats ass about I'll be pissed.

Especially considering radio is as bad as TV is now a days. A year or two after I moved away from Northern DE they axed the last rock station in the area and turned it into some R&B, Rap bullshit. There was literally NO station that played decent rock music in the Northern DE area when I moved away.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.